Without reaching serious extremes such as sexual or psychological harassment -in the space existing from zero perversion to mobbing-, there is a range of venial-grade bad habits that affect the quality of life in some organizations. Although many managers effectively take care of the relationship with their collaborators and show valuable social skills, there are, yes, some others who, for different reasons, sometimes abuse the power they administer, and it does not seem that leadership courses always avoid -or even address these possible excesses.
In 2006, in a text that I read, the consultant Ovidio Peñalver assured that you could not be a good manager-leader without being a good person. I found it curious that this should be said after myriad leadership seminars over the past decades, but I liked reading it. We know that there are people with insufficient integrity in management positions, without this feature having prevented access; in fact, and although we all know many exemplary managers, integrity may have hindered a professional career (in this regard I remember Peter Drucker denouncing the greed of the executives of our time). But, if the reader accompanies me, I am going to focus here only on the framework of relations between managers and workers.
As we know, psychological harassment comes to be the application, on a person and with a destructive spirit, of subtle perversions, minor and major, that the harasser is allowed; But, even without wanting to morally destroy any worker, or get them to leave, there are other behaviors of questionable legitimacy that vitiate the relationships we are referring to. Mobbing, like other serious behaviors, is unquestionably reprehensible; But when we consider improving the quality of life at work, and beyond talking about emotions, incentives, flexible hours, technical resources, training or promotions, we must also identify some habits that are protected by a certain impunity of command.
Often times, the perceived difference between the best bosses and the worst is based on relational vices such as the ones we will describe here, although it is undoubtedly much more desirable that this difference is based on positive elements such as the contribution to the professional development of employees, ideal distribution of tasks or functions, receptivity to initiatives and ideas, effective feedback, quality and warmth of communication, integrity, self-discipline, open-mindedness, insight, flexibility…
In a daring way, we might think that one can be happy or not at work, depending on the boss who touches us; although bosses can also think the same about their subordinates. The fact is, we can all be more effective and happy at the company, and it's worth a try. The worker may, of course, prefer, for example, a neurotic boss to having none and being unemployed; But this should not neutralize the general desire for an improvement in the quality of life at work, in synergy with the inexcusable individual and collective effectiveness, and starting by making each of us work life more pleasant for others, both to a side as well as the other of the hierarchical vertical.
Naturally, there are executives and managers who are exemplary, even without attending frequent seminars or workshops on leadership in consulting firms or business schools; but we cannot deny the existence of abuses of power any more than we could deny -although we sometimes did- the existence of mobbing. We can keep silent and draw the usual thick veil, but the best thing would be to reduce all the perversions, major and minor and perhaps unpunished, for the benefit of professional satisfaction and collective effectiveness in companies; for the benefit of professionalism.
Perhaps it could be thought that the objective of combining the effectiveness and the professional satisfaction of the people has already been addressed in the many seminars organized for the development of leadership in middle managers; but has it really been like this? I would say, although it sounds strong, that leadership models have been defined, in many cases, ignoring or pretending to followers, and contributing to an excessive elitization of leadership. I stick with what Peter Drucker maintained: as we know, he came to say that each person must be directed in a specific way, and even in a particular way at different times.
The abuse of power
Let us also say that the occasional abusive practices do not turn the controls or managers involved into monsters, because many of us abuse, at times and even minimally, the power, much or little, that we administer: traffic patrollers over motorists, pilots over passengers, teachers over students, law enforcement officers over suspects, customers over suppliers (or the other way around, depending on the case) and even parents over children (also the other way around, sometimes). The roles could be switched without the problem necessarily disappearing, and this may be part of our genes; But the fact is, abuse can snowball into a standard practice. We must also not forget that in the company we tend to live under pressure, constantly facing risks and challenges,which undoubtedly alters our behavior.
It is worth remembering here the experiment carried out at Stanford University in 1971, and about which Peters and Waterman spoke in their classic In Search of Excellence. Having asked for volunteers to recreate a prison for ten days, Professor Phil Zimbardo observed that, already at the end of the first, some volunteers selected as guardians had abused their prerogatives, and physically and psychologically damaged some of those selected as inmates. The experiment had to be concluded on the fourth day, for fear of the consequences of the excesses recorded. The analysis is certainly complex, and furthermore no examples are needed to argue that power is abused; But I wanted to underline the idea that we all probably have ingrained mindsets that consider it natural.
Like me, the reader will have also come up with another possible experiment with volunteers, not just guards and prisoners, but bosses and subordinates. Applying some pressure on the former, it would be easy to appreciate a somewhat neurotic and hostile behavior on the latter, which makes me come to the reflection - I always get some platitude - that emotional maturity is essential in those who handle power.
Sometimes, and because he is also human, we try to compensate for the injustices we commit…; But let's be specific: what do I mean exactly, within the company? What is it that, in hierarchical relationships and even without going to extremes, significantly damages the quality of life in the company? The reader may already be thinking about the excessive workloads, the collective neurosis of some organizations, the fierce politicking, contradictory goals or norms, corporate cynicism, favoritism, spurious interests, the debts of gratitude, in the empire of appearance, in militant mediocrity, in greedy or negligent corruption… All this exists to a greater or lesser degree in many organizations, but I would like to focus these pages especially on moral damage that, even without being extreme and persistent,the boss can cause the subordinate, with more or less awareness of it and in relation to the use of power that the first administers.
There are, to begin with, personality disorders such as neurosis or psychosis - let's also think of narcissism - that undoubtedly affect the people around them, and that are certainly not exclusive to managers. But, above all, and without forgetting sexual harassment or other serious behaviors, I wish to refer to more common practices and of which perhaps we speak less, such as false promises, cheating tasks that are sometimes entrusted to collaborators, alleged deliveries responsibility that other workers ignore, decisions just because, cynicism in communication, the appropriation of collective merits, the imposition of tasks that do not correspond to the position occupied by the worker, requests contrary to principles or values of individuals, discriminatory or humiliating treatment, unnecessary display of power,mistrust by default, gratuitous professional disavowal, slander… These are apparently venial peccadilloes and can only be attributed to those who commit them, but let's identify them.
Despite the courses or seminars that are orchestrated, the referential vacuum that exists for the behavior of managers and directors in their relationships with workers could certainly not be healthy; Even recognizing exemplary behaviors of many of those - capable of creating authentic microclimates of professional satisfaction - the truth is that sometimes the good treatment received has a price for the worker, even beyond total submission or practical complicity. Let us not escape, if you let me insist, that a human being with power has its danger, without ruling out when saying so that there are those who administer it properly, for the collective benefit and not just their own.
There will be those who think, or have ever thought, that almost everything is worth, after the purpose of obtaining the best performance from workers; But the best managers and managers - whether or not we label them leaders - know that collective effectiveness must be added to a sufficient dose of quality of life at work, the result, among other things and perhaps above all, of mutual respect in interpersonal relationships. Following this idea, we should question the impunity to which we have referred, and the silence that is often imposed. We have been thinking that if one were to complain of mistreatment to a higher instance, it could very probably end worse. Can you imagine asking the director of the company for an audience to go and say: "Look, my boss is a liar…"?
Some organizations, already in the late 90's if not earlier, put in place bottom-up feedback systems, to get a better idea of what was going on. Until then, it had been the workplace climate surveys that provided a rather indirect and generic measure of the performance of managers on workers. The truth is that, if you want to know the professional conduct of someone, manager or worker, you should analyze it very rigorously and directly; among other reasons because one can proceed in one way with one person, and another with others. Last year the death of Ken Lay, the head of the Enron scandal, was known; Well, regretting this end, let's remember that he was an example of a business leader until the scandal broke out.This is not an example referring to interpersonal relationships, but it does seem ideal to remember that, in companies, things are not always what they seem: we know it well.
I would like to add that I had the feeling, in the 80s and 90s - in those surveys of work environment or people's satisfaction - that they didn't ask me what I wanted to say; Even so, the results were fair or bad, and we would later hear curious explanations about them: I fear that cynicism sometimes reaches very high levels. But, if you wish, come to your own conclusions about impunity and complicity in the companies you have known; I want to refer here especially to some practices that I place between zero and mobbing. I do it by adding to the desire for more professional relationships within companies; not cooler, but more professional and with greater respect for people and ethics.The emerging economy of knowledge and innovation seem to demand new and more professional profiles of workers and managers, and we should avoid behaviors such as the following, if they still exist. I have selected ten, but the reader will know perhaps more.
1. The traditional promises
Perhaps it is a practice that is being reduced, but it was quite common decades ago. It certainly made it easier to control the will of subordinates, but it made the worker move toward service to the boss, and perhaps not so much toward professional goals; In other words, it could constitute a certain alienating corruption. It should be completely eradicated as a deceptive practice, without prejudice to formal incentive and promotion systems. Even if we are sincere when thinking about future possibilities, perhaps we should not pass them on to the possible beneficiary, whether senior or junior; moreover, sometimes things are promised that cannot be fulfilled. And it shouldn't be worth the "I don't promise you anything."
If the reader agrees, the manager should not seek the submission of the workers, but rather their professional contribution to achieve the shared goals together. It seems natural that the clandestine promises to which we have referred are already a thing of the past, although residual cases are not ruled out. They could be part of the cult of the ego, of the exhibition of power, but the methods of directing people would have to be updated, where it has not been done yet. The junior worker (the senior already does) will do well to listen with reservations to these advances for the future (promotion, assumption of power, salary increase, etc.).
2. Comparative torts
Comparative grievances undermine the morale of those affected, witnesses of more favorable treatment towards other workers. The favorable treatment of a collaborator seems very humane, but it can certainly lead to a rarefied work environment. It would be necessary to see, in each favorable treatment, both what it consists of and whether it is based on the values declared in the organization (diligence, professional development, quality, team spirit, responsibility, customer orientation, etc.), or is explained by the free will of the boss; but, in any case, the special treatments would have to coexist with the required professionalism. Without a doubt and for example, friendship relations are fully legitimate but they should not affect the correct functioning of the boss's area of influence.
3. Mistrust as the norm
Distrust in subordinates could in some cases be justified and, even so, it should perhaps be further concealed; But trust can be a good investment and it is worth checking. The reader will have their point of view, but I think sometimes there are too many bureaucratic controls, and they even seem to be orchestrated perhaps more to remind workers that they are under control, than to ensure the smooth running of things. It would seem that mistrust as a rule, mistrust by default, is a thing of the past - before cultural changes in companies - even if it is still occurring.
Ultimately, working with the feeling that you are distrusted is like walking with a great weight on your back; It undoubtedly affects the moral of the individual, especially if the suspicion displayed by the boss is related to prejudices of a certain origin. In reality, it would be necessary to distinguish here the general controls that the company orchestrates, of the attitude or conduct of each boss with his subordinates, and of course there are other circumstances to consider; But I think most of us prefer to be trusted, and we are generally willing to show that it is worth it. Something like that said Douglas McGregor more than 40 years ago.
4. Vices in communication
Internal communication has almost never been resolved well in organizations and, although liturgical events have been orchestrated in this regard (communication sessions, dinners with the president, etc.), the truth is that daily communication with the boss fails. There may be corporate cynicism but perhaps more frustrating, in your case, the everyday in hierarchical communication. If communication does not work, the effectiveness of the efforts made suffers and, of course, professional satisfaction suffers. Many seminars are organized to improve communication in companies, but the attitude and the will of both may be failing.
Sometimes, the lie seems to constitute a legitimate management tool for the boss -maybe for the sake of motivation and the achievement of results-, although it does not take long to reveal himself; but we can also speak of secrecy, evasiveness, hypocrisy, subjectivity, disparity in mental schemes, etc. It is also worth - let us remember - assign managers and managers a role of stroking, recognition of merit, praise, in accordance with the need we all have for affection, and that would be missed in their case. Poor communication demoralizes workers, and further reduces the collective intelligence of the organization. I still remember when, in the 80's, my department complained to the director about the existing lack of communication, and he decided that we would attend a Transactional Analysis seminar,surely giving us to understand that the lack was in ourselves. (Of course the situation did not improve, but we learned that - said now without generalizing - it was not worth complaining).
5. Deliveries of false responsibility
A fellow consultant told me that one of the worst things in his company was the responsibilities that his boss falsely assigned. It seems that there was an official distribution of responsibilities in some projects, and another, at least as far as he was concerned, informal and private. The boss called him at the office to tell him that, in reality, he (the colleague I am talking about) was in charge of a certain project (coordinating other people). Here there seems to be deception, either for the officially appointed or for the privately elected. These things, if they do not bring major complications, at least generate confusion. The manager can, if he wishes, test the assumption of responsibility and the competence of a collaborator without deception.
The truth is that when one is caught on the receiving end of this type of private (or public, but not formal) message from his boss, he could legitimately feel that he should prepare if something goes wrong. Perhaps the official responsible would come out well, but the individual can fear the worst; It is possible to react intelligently and perhaps try to recover in health, but the suspicion that the boss wants to make you guilty of what goes wrong, or that you receive a false authority, or that there may be a double responsible lurking is not pleasant, etc.
This idea of clandestine responsibilities overlaps with false empowerment, so I take the opportunity to try to identify the genuine one:
- Responsibility for the results; Power (formal authority) to make decisions; Human and material resources for execution; Information and necessary knowledge, and Professional competence of the attorney-in-fact.
Of course, it is a shame that someone has the capacity, competence, will, to "be able" (verb) to do something, but lacks the "power" (noun) to do it. If a manager were to take over a collaborator missing any of these five elements, we would perhaps be facing an oversight of the first or a trap for the second. But what I am especially denouncing here is the false delivery of responsibility, which can confuse the worker and which can be done precisely to do so, waiting to see how he reacts. Frankly, it doesn't seem like a very professional practice.
6. The appropriation of merits of the collaborators
Let's talk now about the appropriation by the boss of other people's merits, as hard as it sounds. Look, to begin with, in how we sometimes define the manager-leader: "A good leader is, among other things, because he knows how to get the best out of his collaborators." I have reproduced a verbatim phrase by Javier Fernández Aguado, but the idea is present in the very essence of the leadership of managers. Of course, and said like this, if an individual does something especially well, it seems that it will be because his boss-leader will have known how to obtain it from him… As a worker and for example, I would prefer to read that a good manager is, among other things, because facilitates or encourages the development, better performance and professional fulfillment of the workers in its area of influence.
There are, of course, occasions when a good part of the credit, if not almost all, can be attributed to the manager; But I am referring here to singular specific achievements that are the result of the effort (and even the initiative) of a professional (or several), and whose quality, dedication or relevance could tend to show off in their benefit a boss of doubtful integrity. Now I remember a time when I myself (that I have some things of merit in my "credit", apart from the greater volume of the "must") suffered this from a boss who was not mine by the way, and also, and strangely in my case, in that meeting I had the temperance to shut up and let… I bring this memory of mine to attest that things really annoy, especially when one has done something (heck, it happens sometimes) with reason and heart, exceeding mere compliance,and perhaps even advancing against deliberate obstacles: the reader will agree.
Indeed, we can speak of extraordinary efforts made by not a few workers - perhaps to overcome extraordinary obstacles - but they can arise from professional itch, faith in what is done, intrinsic motivation, and sometimes be carried out despite of the boss, as they can also arise because of the boss. Here I link to the next point.
7. Petitions contrary to the principles of the worker
Instead of moral principles, read, if you prefer, corporately proclaimed values (customer orientation, quality, creativity, integrity, etc.). The fact is that - let me insist on exploiting my experiences as a training consultant - I myself was forced, as an e-learning designer-scriptwriter, to design online courses with very little time allotted, I think for budget reasons. In practice, I spent three times as much time designing, but it had been arranged that we only charge the project for the planned hours. I then extended my working day, because I was unable to deliver a design without feeling sufficiently satisfied; then the course would or would not satisfy the users, but we know that a teacher usually has an autotelic profile, and makes an effort (perhaps sometimes exaggerated) that the students learn.
The reader will know other types of requests similar to those of subordinates, and may even think that it is corporately legitimate to put workers at the service of the business and not so much that of their profession; But you will agree that no skilled worker likes to mess around. There are also cases in which managers put their subordinates to work on particular matters (of the manager), to endure downpours that do not correspond to them, etc., and here they would have to have their consent. We know, of course, that there have been and are managers for whom their formal authority is frequently above any other consideration, as we also know that there are many others who prefer, and cultivate, moral authority over their collaborators: this already connects with what Whats Next.
8. Unnecessary displays of power
Managers seem to crave power, whether to do great things, to improve their status, or simply to own and exercise it. In any case, the cult of the ego sometimes consumes a good part of the available attention, and, above all, it can be harmful to subordinates when their personal or professional dignity is affected. Arrogance, the presumption of infallibility, the display of privileges, decisions because I say so, the excess of liturgies, or illegitimate coercion, among other possibilities, seem to occur especially in managers and managers who have reached power especially to show it off, or lacking sufficient maturity.
It goes without saying that, in theory, power is a tool at the service of the organization and not of the people who administer it; But also in theory the workers (I am thinking above all of large companies and the so-called knowledge workers) have to pursue shared goals, and yet we ask them to follow, as followers, a supposed leader (inevitable to remember the anagram sheepfold, if allow me irreverence). We could be thinking here about a new organizational order, but it is enough to remember that excesses in the display of power do not magnify, but rather dwarf, those who produce them; of course, they are often and unnecessary, shocking for the environment.
9. The exclusion of the worker
There may be different causes for removing a worker from regular communication, from participating in decision-making, and even from the course of the activity: some perhaps explainable and justified, and others not so much. Furthermore, it can be done in an undeclared way; For the boss, it is simple, for example, to hold a meeting taking advantage of an opportune absence, or to argue the dedication of a person to some issues, freeing them from others. If we are not facing an authentic mobbing process, it may be a temporary psychological punishment for something that the boss did not like, in a way to neutralize its criticality, or many other things, including situations of general mediocrity that militate against particular brilliance.
Indeed, if a worker knew a lot about different subjects, he could expose the mediocre and the boss himself. The new knowledge economy must resolve hierarchical relationships well, considering the growing value of knowledge and the need for lifelong learning. Logically, the manager (whose role evolves, without losing weight, in the emerging economy) will no longer always be able to compete in knowing with the workers, and moral authority will be more useful than formal authority; but he will also have to ensure that what stands out in his area is brilliance and continuous learning, and not mediocrity and immobility.
10. Permanent irritability
Just as we imagine the best boss as someone of good character, who does not forget his good manners and who also displays a good humor (even in the face of adversity or emergencies), we associate the worst boss with irritability and difficulty in the relationship. Obviously, the so-called managerial quality is something else; But faced with an irritable, neurotic, anxious boss, we can feel blocked, unless we can do our work with some autonomy.
Irritability can certainly be associated, where appropriate, with the stress and pressure to which managers are frequently subjected. Let's think about asking how is the head of humor today…; Perhaps you've had a problem with a customer or supplier, and you can splash on approaching workers. He is human, but the truth is that there are bosses in whose absence one works much better, and about whom we wonder what happens today, precisely when they are friendly. Self-control, temperance, receptivity, resistance to adversity, are qualities or necessary virtues in managers, and that most of them show off; but when it is not, the workers suffer from it.
Why talk about bad practices
The ideal profile of 21st century managers seems to be one of the cardinal themes in the management literature, although perhaps we have gotten stuck in the concept of leadership. The fact is that in order to arrive at this ideal profile, it is surely necessary to add what is missing and eliminate what is left, always considering each circumstance and, of course, the profile of the workers in the environment. Among the things that are sometimes unnecessary, we could refer to the excessive need for self-assertion in younger managers, an exaggerated cult of the ego, a particular perception of realities and an abuse of the power that is administered; all of this - and something else - is specified in behaviors such as those previously identified.
I have highlighted these ten but, still referring to the boss-subordinate relationship, there are more behaviors that erode the quality of life in the company: the excessive workload on the subordinate, the hindrance of their learning and development, their public disapproval, etc.. It is not so much a question of identifying what we already know, but of underlining the need to professionalize the relationships between managers and workers, which includes a good dose of self-criticism and self-discipline in all of us. Nobody is perfect, but we can all be less imperfect and, as we said, this would happen by neutralizing both the defects and the excesses.
In the training programs we have been postulating a manager-leader profile - actually we have many models - as a solution to the hierarchical relationships of middle managers, but its supposed energizing effect could evaporate in the presence of major or minor perversions, both in terms of what refers to the hierarchical relationships in which we have stopped here, as in what has to do with general professional conduct. The objective to be formulated in the 21st century is ambitious: we need managers who add more value to organizations and who, through moral authority, are more valuable to workers, for the benefit of effectiveness and professional satisfaction. Managers can and should help everyone achieve higher levels of professionalism in their daily performance.
The new knowledge worker, the one Drucker drew us for the emerging economy, has attracted our attention and it seems that there is a lot of coincidence in the description of his ideal profile; However, perhaps there is not much agreement regarding the profile of the middle manager. Despite the insistence on the concept of leadership over employees, perhaps the new bosses should be - because the transition from the industrial stage to that of knowledge seems to demand it - fewer Ministers of the Interior, and more Ministers of Foreign Affairs, at the same time that empowerment is well applied. Naturally, there are companies and managers that have been working like this for a long time, to the extent that workers respond to the ideal profile and are the protagonists of their activity.
Final message
I would say to young people with a vocation for managers who pursue power to do important things, and that their professional dimension will be related to the good use they make of it. I would also tell them that their subordinates are not stupid, and that it is not easy to deceive them; and that they do not try to compete in knowledge with them, that they avoid the presumption of infallibility, that they bet on integrity and accompany it with good judgment… You will make mistakes; but learn from them and, above all, recognize them. Also, digest your first hits well if you hit them early.
You will be much more than bosses, but, as such, moral authority will be more useful to you than formal power; intelligence, than knowledge; self-control, which you exercise over collaborators; generosity, than meanness; flexibility, than rigor; sincerity, than falsehood; personal cultivation, than the cult of the ego… You may experience a relationship between managers and workers very different from the one known in previous decades: favor it, and do not hinder it in favor of the status quo.
Do not feel like leaders if your environment does not see you as such, but try to win the adherence of the workers to a good end. Decide for yourself if, in each case, the ideal relationship is that of leader-follower, that of client-provider, that of tutor-ward, that of manager-collaborator, that of boss-subordinate, that of expert-assistant, for senior-junior, that of proactive-reactive, that of colleague-colleague, or that of professional-professional; but decide well, for the benefit of the results. Remember that if collective effectiveness is inexcusable, a well-understood quality of life at work must also be pursued, for everyone. See the workers as professionals, and contribute to their being fully so. Your satisfaction is a goal, as is your professional development.
If the reader is young, he may not take any more advice; And if you are not so young, perhaps you can reflect on its suitability (that of the advice formulated for young people), as on the opportunity to review the minor (or perhaps not so small) perversions that we have described and whose residual presence should be eradicated. The desired quality of life at work - without prejudice to, and even for the benefit of, collective effectiveness - demands an ambitious development, as complete human beings, of everyone: managers and workers.
